Common sense, or a rule?

[jimnyc]

Should we extend the rules when issues come up, or keep them short and rely on common sense to dictate? But then without something being "written" into the rules, can we fairly discipline someone who violates what the community considers common sense not to do?

The latest being making fun of others spouses. We've always tried to keep this off limits and have even disciplined based on this. But there is no clear rule, we kind of did this based on common sense, that we don't pick on people that aren't here to defend themselves. Now, I can add this to the rules, but what happens the next time something happens that is obviously out of bounds, but not written in the rules? Do we again update the rules? Do we want a laundry list of rules covering every issue that arises?

This is NOT a discussion of prior events or specifics. This is solely to gauge how the community feels about more rules or whether or not things like this "go without saying".

[jimnyc]

Btw - I'm likely to add this to the rules, as we ALL know it's best to avoid talking smack about family members. But I want the community involved nonetheless.

[fj1200]

Common sense would be don't bring up your wife and don't complain if you do. Or you could just shut a thread down sooner than later.

[jimnyc]

Common sense would be don't bring up your wife and don't complain if you do. Or you could just shut a thread down sooner than later.

A lot of us discuss our families from time to time, and a lot of us post pictures. Do we open them up for smack talk if we do?

[CSM]

A lot of us discuss our families from time to time, and a lot of us post pictures. Do we open them up for smack talk if we do?

I dunno; one would like to think that those who post here would have some modicum of decorum. Attacking some posters family (especially when it is clear that such an attack is nothing more than an attempt to foment anger/resentment/etc) is truly immature and beyond the bounds (IMO). Shouold it be written into the rules? I guess if it isn't there is always at least one who will go down that path simply because it ISN'T in the rules.

[krisy]

I don't think there are many here that would make fun of someones family members. Maybe just ask people to refrain from that and if they are that immature that they feel the need to play 2nd grade,then they can suffer whatever you feel necessary. Maybe a ban for a day or a week.

[Missileman]

Should we extend the rules when issues come up, or keep them short and rely on common sense to dictate? But then without something being "written" into the rules, can we fairly discipline someone who violates what the community considers common sense not to do?

The latest being making fun of others spouses. We've always tried to keep this off limits and have even disciplined based on this. But there is no clear rule, we kind of did this based on common sense, that we don't pick on people that aren't here to defend themselves. Now, I can add this to the rules, but what happens the next time something happens that is obviously out of bounds, but not written in the rules? Do we again update the rules? Do we want a laundry list of rules covering every issue that arises?

This is NOT a discussion of prior events or specifics. This is solely to gauge how the community feels about more rules or whether or not things like this "go without saying".

Unfortunately, common sense isn't as common as its name suggests.

[CSM]

Unfortunately, common sense isn't as common as its name suggests.

True dat.

[ConHog]

I say new rule, because common sense simply isn't applicable here. I guess you could say common sense would dictate not to flame, but who among us doesn't do that at least to varying degrees? So it happens, the board should acknowledge that happens and set boundaries. IF those boundaries don't exist, and aren't in writing then questions will always be asked when someone IS dinged.

It's like the dress code thread where I was telling Gunny that at our particular school we have set rules, so that a student and or parent knows exactly at what point the rules have been violated, we don't just arbitrarily say "no that dress is too short", for example.

The only REAL question is where should the law be drawn. Like Jim said, many of talk about our family from time to time and certainly that shouldn't open them up to flaming. BUT allow me to use my own wife as an example here.

Suppose FJ (again just an example) and I are discussing something in the legal forum, and I post that my wife the lawyer says the law says such and such. Now does that leave my wife open for flaming about her legal abilities? I certainly think it does. After all, I brought her legal skills into the thread did I not? I probably shouldn't have done so, if I didn't want someone flaming her just as they would with me about a legal opinion. On the other hand, that does NOT in my opinion open the way for anyone to flame her based on looks, nationality, sexuality, or anything else except for the specific area that I brought up.


That's my opinion anyway.

[logroller]

Is there not another rule which you could apply more broadly, accomplishing the same end, without implementing such a hard line. Certainly you wouldn't want to limit one's ability to speak of their family at all, but if one uses their family to support their position, then certainly one should be able to rebut their argument. As Noir would say its 'fair play'.

Clearly there are rules which may, from time to time, go un-enforced. This discretion, which you, Jim, are entirely within your rights to exercise; takes into consideration the unique circumstances of the situation. I assume at least one thing you're talking about are those jabs at CH's wife's latino descent; which certainly runs afoul of the proposed rule. However, multiple times to my knowledge CH has mentioned his wife's latino descent in a way which I thought bolstered his position-- certainly this is not as casual as posting a vacation pic and requires a standard of discretion which could, in all likelihood, be thwarted by the protectionist rule you propose-- begging the phrase, could the cure being worse than the ailment?

Whether or not to write the rule is up to you Jim, (its good to be the king!) as is how it would be written and enforced; but if I were in the position to rule I would ask myself, would the situations which have arisen could/should/would have been better dealt with had I a written rule at my disposal?

-

[ConHog]

Is there not another rule which you could apply more broadly, accomplishing the same end, without implementing such a hard line. Certainly you wouldn't want to limit one's ability to speak of their family at all, but if one uses their family to support their position, then certainly one should be able to rebut their argument. As Noir would say its 'fair play'.

Clearly there are rules which may, from time to time, go un-enforced. This discretion, which you, Jim, are entirely within your rights to exercise; takes into consideration the unique circumstances of the situation. I assume at least one thing you're talking about are those jabs at CH's wife's latino descent; which certainly runs afoul of the proposed rule. However, multiple times to my knowledge CH has mentioned his wife's latino descent in a way which I thought bolstered his position-- certainly this is not as casual as posting a vacation pic and requires a standard of discretion which could, in all likelihood, be thwarted by the protectionist rule you propose-- begging the phrase, could the cure being worse than the ailment?

Whether or not to write the rule is up to you Jim, (its good to be the king!) as is how it would be written and enforced; but if I were in the position to rule I would ask myself, would the situations which have arisen could/should/would have been better dealt with had I a written rule at my disposal?

-

I don't mind being used as an example, nor my wife. So taking your points.

I acknowledge that I have used my wife's heritage as well as her profession to bolster certain of my arguments, and you are absolutely right, you SHOULD be able to argue or even flame in my opinion based on what I myself have brought into a thread.

For instance, on another board once I was called a racist, I laughed and said I married a Latina, that's nor very racist of me, someone posted back that my wife wasn't a Hispanic, she was an American . Of course she's an American, but she's a Latina as well, well the thread turned into a flame war over the difference. Now mind you, that board DOES have a rule, no flaming family members unless the person themselves brings them into the conversation and then only on whatever it is THEY brought into the discussion.

So on that board, if I bring up my Latina wife as being of Mexican heritage, THAT becomes fair game, but if I simply posted a picture of the two of us, then flaming her heritage is NOT fair game.

[krisy]

I would say if conhog brings his wife's legal arguments into something(example) then her arguments are open to crticism.That's it. As adults,I would think everyone can determine what is over the lin.If children in grade school can,then I think every adult on this board can. If someone calls her a name,or brings her race into it,their done.

[logroller]

I don't mind being used as an example, nor my wife. So taking your points.

I acknowledge that I have used my wife's heritage as well as her profession to bolster certain of my arguments, and you are absolutely right, you SHOULD be able to argue or even flame in my opinion based on what I myself have brought into a thread.

Argue and debate, YES; but no flaming is a rule here CH, against any member, so naturally it would apply to one's family as well; I would think that rule could be applied to quell most, if not all of the issues this new rule is meant to prevent. Its not a common sense rule currently in effect IMO, its the discretion of the board to enforce the rules we already have. But I'm a fan of the Ninth Circuit Court, so of course I'm for more broad interpretations of existing rules.

[chloe]

I don't think anyone should make fun of anyones family.

I guess defining flaming a family, if someone makes a statement about there looks and families looks as the hottest around and posts pictures, common sense says they are sharing something and appreciate feedback.

It's probably better not to say anything if you got nothing nice to say but if all you say is you don't find that type attractive or something along those lines I don't see it as flaming.

[jimnyc]

I don't think anyone should make fun of anyones family.

I guess defining flaming a family, if someone makes a statement about there looks and families looks as the hottest around and posts pictures, common sense says they are sharing something and appreciate feedback.

It's probably better not to say anything if you got nothing nice to say but if all you say is you don't find that type attractive or something along those lines I don't see it as flaming.

But what if a member posts a picture, and someone says MORE than just that they aren't attractive, but starts to become derogatory with terms towards the people in the picture? Is that flaming, or allowed since the member posted the picture him or herself?